Google says Vista search changes not enough!


Recommended Posts

As we reported yesterday, Microsoft's "capitulation" to Google's antitrust complaint isn't as much a capitulation as the mainstream media was reporting. We inspected Microsoft's joint filing and found that Microsoft is not going to allow a complete override of the default search service in all Explorer windows, and that the company also rejects Google's concerns about performance.

In response, Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."

Nevertheless, Drummond said that "Microsoft's current approach to Vista desktop search clearly violates the consent decree and limits consumer choice," and the proposed remedies "are a step in the right direction, but they should be improved further to give consumers greater access to alternate desktop search providers."

Google did not elaborate on its expectations, although they are not difficult to piece together. Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely, and Microsoft has not accommodated this demand. Search still runs, and OEMs and third-party software companies have not been given a way to schedule or disable it.

Furthermore, Microsoft did not make it possible to change the search defaults in a universal way, instead keeping its search system as the default throughout most of Windows Explorer. In short, Vista's search boxes will by and large return Vista's own search results if you type text into them and hit return. Microsoft's changes appear to mostly involve links to the "default" third party program, not a drop-in replacement.

Google's disappointment was only partly echoed by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who called the remedy a step in the right direction. "This agreement?while not perfect?is a positive step towards greater competition in the software industry. It will enhance the ability of consumers to select the desktop search tool of their choice," he said.

At this stage, it's unclear what recourse either Brown or Google has to change Microsoft's plan. Thomas O. Barnett, assistant Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, said in a statement that the agreement reached between Microsoft and the DOJ "resolve[d] any issues about desktop search under the final judgments."

The DOJ and all 17 state attorneys general agreed with Microsoft's proposal. "Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised," according to the joint filing.

Source: arstechnica

To a degree they are right.. Microsoft should put hooks into the Operating System to allow full drop in replacement. I think that the drop in replacement should be branded in such a way that it is very clear that it is not Microsoft's responsibility if they completely suck... and if anything break warranty on the Operating System if they are replaced - kind of like buying an off the shelf computer with a 'warranty void if seal broken' sticker on the back, you break that seal and on your head be it.

I just hope that should Google release an O/S (which I am sure they eventually will), that they are consistant to this request...

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?

because the Apple population is so insignificant it makes virtually no difference to Google's revenue streams?

no offence to Apple users - I meant insignificant in numbers...

I swear google. Go Away.

They want Microsoft to cripple their search so that they can come in as saviors to Windows Users, and offer a nice solution to a problem that they themselves (unknownst to the users, of course) created.

Google Desktop Search is akin to spyware. You find it sleezily attached to every damned installer software out there. Google is just ****ed that they can't slide their crappy toolbar onto your computer anymore, and plaster you with links to google.com, because the software that they used to do it is now obsolete.

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?

Because Apple and Google have an "understanding".

That's it. Screw google. I'm switching my homepage to live.com. I guess I'll have to write a decent digg.com gadget for it, since there isn't one.

Edited by MioTheGreat

I agree in this instance, Google should back off.

because the Apple population is so insignificant it makes virtually no difference to Google's revenue streams?

no offence to Apple users - I meant insignificant in numbers...

That's probably the reason why Apple and Google are working so closely together lately, because the company is so insignificant. (Y)

The reason why Google isn't going after Apple is probably because Mac OS X allows 3rd party vendors make input managers for Spotlight. Not sure if that's the exact reason though, and if Windows Vista allows this as well.

I did read something about Apple working with Google to give Spotlight Google Search capabilities, but from what I understand those will be online oriented only. Not for searching within the OS itself.

I seem to lose respect for Google more and more, with each passing day. :( A lot of their operations and actions seem to be getting way out of control, lately.

I still like their products, but this is too much. Hampering Microsoft to make a better OS? System search isn't the same as a Media Player or Web Browser...

Microsoft: Just make a small options at first startup to select search engine.

Why should they? Its their operating system. Its not like they are not allowing any third party desktop search systems on there. Google needs to chill out and try not to push crap like google desktop search. Their web search is revolutionary, I will agree with that all the way, but that doesn't mean that they should force their products into operating systems and make the OS crappier.

I did read something about Apple working with Google to give Spotlight Google Search capabilities, but from what I understand those will be online oriented only. Not for searching within the OS itself.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Google can do this on OSX because they're working with Apple. They can't do that on Windows, and they're afraid that if Microsoft starts to close the gap between web and desktop searching, Google will take a rather steep plunge in market share.

EDIT: Anyone know if www.live.com is a decent search engine. I'm in the mood to turn my back on Google for good.

I just started using it a few minutes ago. Thus far, it seems good. The image search, at the very least, is much nicer than Google's. Overall the entire thing is much more AJAXy, but in a good way.

It's about time for a class-action counter-suit against Google for not allowing other search engines' results to be returned on google.com.

It's completely unfair that I cannot get live or yahoo results on google's page. That is noncompetitive behavior.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Google can do this on OSX because they're working with Apple. They can't do that on Windows, and they're afraid that if Microsoft starts to close the gap between web and desktop searching, Google will take a rather steep plunge in market share.

Probably. But even on Mac OS X searching for local and network files will still run through Spotlight's own engine. Not one provided by Google. Plus I'm not entirely sure if it will make it into the OS, the article I read stated that "Apple's looking into it".

The reason why Google isn't going after Apple is probably because Mac OS X allows 3rd party vendors make input managers for Spotlight. Not sure if that's the exact reason though, and if Windows Vista allows this as well.

Input Managers in OS/X are the same as IFilters in the Windows Desktop Search solution - and that's a completely open interface, guess who makes the PDF filter for WDS (let me give you a clue: it isn't Microsoft). We are talking about for example, Apple letting Google replace the entire engine of spotlight, something which is not open to my understanding.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

This has nothing to do with 'openness' or 'user freedom', this is all about the bottom line - and Google are showing they are as evil as any company in that respect...

That's probably the reason why Apple and Google are working so closely together lately, because the company is so insignificant. (Y)

quote]

That Google's company is so insignificant? ...Right.

Well back to the subject:

It's like always, the Bigger one has to be attacked for every little thing... When in the heck, did Microsoft announced Windows as an Open Source OS? What they have to do at Google, Inc. is shut the heck up and keep doing their jobs with zero complaints...

google will you please just shut the f*ck up!!!!!

i see nothing worng with vista's search.sure some improvements can be made, but nothing like this :angry:

I see these angry faces and angry rhetoric posted here all the time. The problem is that if a user prefers the Google search engine, and want to use that instead of Microsoft's search, they cannot shut off or reschedule the built-in Microsoft engine that does the same task. So, users pay double the computing resources for a single task if they choose a competing product, and they don't pay double by keeping Microsoft's.

Or, we can just eloquently state "shut the f*ck up!!!!!" in a mature and reasonable fashion.

Why is Google not going after Apple? Dosn't Apple only allow SPOTLIGHT to search the computer? I don't remember being able to change the default in Mac OS ... and crap, I don't know, but can you install GoogleDesktop in Tiger/Leapord?
Despite the mis-informed opinions of people who didn't even read the summary in the first post, this isn't because "Apple is insignificant in marketshare". The Google request is aimed directly at compliance with the US DoJ Concent Decree which is a result of a legal process. Apple has no such Consent Decree, as they weren't the subject of an anti-trust trial. That's all.
Despite the mis-informed opinions of people who didn't even read the summary in the first post, this isn't because "Apple is insignificant in marketshare". The Google request is aimed directly at compliance with the US DoJ Concent Decree which is a result of a legal process. Apple has no such Consent Decree, as they weren't the subject of an anti-trust trial. That's all.

As much as I hate quoting myself, but here goes. Just to explain that is what I meant with the insignificant marketshare.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

If you think this is all about making Microsoft comply with the DoJ, then you are deluded. Lawyer and legal encounters cost money, and therefore are never made without something to gain. The Antitrust ruling may have been used as a vehicle to take action, but to think it was the reason action was taken at all is naive.

Input Managers in OS/X are the same as IFilters in the Windows Desktop Search solution - and that's a completely open interface, guess who makes the PDF filter for WDS (let me give you a clue: it isn't Microsoft). We are talking about for example, Apple letting Google replace the entire engine of spotlight, something which is not open to my understanding.

Nope that's outrageous. I seriously doubt Apple, like Microsoft, would allow Google and other 3rd party vendors to completely replace Spotlight either.

You misunderstood my comment on the insignificance (or twisted it around), I meant the cost of the battle to replace the engine behind the desktop solution is probably easier with Microsoft (given their DOJ history), probably cheaper with Microsoft (as it would invove an Antitrust suit against Apple), the number of users they stand to gain is many times smaller than going after Microsoft - it just doesn't make sound economic sense to go after Apple.

I still think it has more to do with the fact that Apple and Google are working so closely together nowadays. Plus Apple isn't trying to make it's own web search engine, like Microsoft does, thus they're not cutting into Google's market share. In both cases they're no competition.

That Google's company is so insignificant? ...Right.

??

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • A coalition of publishers sued OpenAI and Microsoft over scraping content without consent by Hamid Ganji Image via Depositphotos.com AI companies often rely on readily available internet content to train their chatbots and provide users with instant answers. This method of AI training is fast and relatively inexpensive, but using a website’s content without permission or compensation is not something publishers like to see, and this is exactly why Microsoft and OpenAI are now being sued. As reported by Bloomberg, a group of publishers that collectively own nearly 400 newspapers has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The coalition argues that the two companies scraped their content to build AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Copilot without paying any compensation. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that while AI products have generated billions of dollars in market value using publishers’ work, none of that value has been shared with the publishers. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief for alleged copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. “Defendants systematically and secretly crawled the Publishers’ websites—including content behind paywalls and other access restrictions—and copied the Publishers’ articles, stories, and other original works onto their own servers without authorization,” the complaint states. The publishers also described the AI boom as a “death knell for local journalism” if AI companies that scrape content for free are not held accountable. Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and his law firm, Platkin LLP, are representing the publishers. “Our models empower innovation, are trained on publicly available data, and are grounded in fair use,” OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri told Bloomberg. This is not the first lawsuit involving the unauthorized use of publishers’ content by AI firms, but it is one of the largest coalitions ever formed against the free use of content by AI chatbots. In 2024, OpenAI and Microsoft also faced a similar lawsuit from eight newspapers that claimed AI products were benefiting from their content without permission.
    • Rufus alternative Ventoy now supports Windows 11's mandatory update, fixes major boot bug by Sayan Sen While Microsoft has its own official Media Creation Tool used for making bootable USB media, there are some popular third-party utilities as well which offer additional options like bypassing system requirements, Microsoft Account creation, and more. One of these is Ventoy, and the software has received its latest update today. In fact, the app actually got a slew of updates over the last couple of days, three version releases in total, to be specific. The first release, version 1.1.13, was pulled as there was some unspecified error in the update, and as such, the corrected version 1.1.14 was pushed out. Following that on very short notice, 1.1.15 was published as well. For those unfamiliar, Ventoy is an open-source utility that lets users create a bootable USB drive once and then simply copy ISO, WIM, IMG, VHD, or EFI files onto it without repeatedly formatting the drive. It supports both legacy BIOS and UEFI boot modes, Secure Boot, and a wide range of operating systems, making it one of the most versatile tools in the category. The biggest change in version 1.1.14 is an updated Secure Boot shim file aimed at resolving the UEFI CA 2023 issue, which is basically a compatibility problem that has affected Secure Boot environments on some systems. If you recall, we reported about severe boot issues on HP devices following the release of updated Secure Boot 2023 keys. For anyone who may not be aware, back in early 2024, Microsoft announced that it was updating Secure Boot keys as they were going to become 15 years old in 2026, which is also when they are set to expire. As such, the new 2023 certificates have been rolling out with the newest Windows 11 updates. Updated boot manager and Secure Boot certificates are crucial for protection against malware like bootkits. These are mandatory updates. Alongside that, the VentoyPlugson graphical plugin configurator was updated in sync with the release. The update also introduces a new VTOY_SECURE_BOOT_POLICY option within the Global Control plugin, giving users more flexibility in managing Secure Boot behavior. Ventoy has also received a fix for a startup issue when Secure Boot was disabled. Microsoft does officially allow users to boot systems without Secure Boot as long as the PC is Secure Boot capable. The full changelog is given below: Update secure boot shim file to solve the UEFI CA 2023 issue. The new release use a new CA, so you need to enroll the new key for the first boot time. VentoyPlugson update synchronously. Global control plugin add a VTOY_SECURE_BOOT_POLICY option. Fix the boot issue when Secure Boot is disabled in the UEFI firmware. You can download the latest version of the app here on Ventoy's official GitHub repo or from Neowin software stories.
    • Windows 11 is fine, no issues on any of the machines I've run it on since release. The stricter security requirements are a good thing, sometimes the baseline needs to change and people will winge, but it is what it is. Happened with the move from 9x to NT - broke compatability Happened with XP SP2 when security started to become a serious consideration Certainly happend with Vista that brought in UAC, the concept of not running as admin (something that has been the norm in Linux/Unix from pretty much the start) and a completely new driver stack. Windows 11 will probably get looked back at as the point where even consumer and SMB IT was dragged kicking and screaming into a somewhat secure by default configuration.
    • Bluestacks has been emulating Android on Windows for fifteen years. It's janky and riddled with ads though, so WSA looked like it was going to be a huge improvement over the emulator experience. Too bad Microsoft dropped the ball on that.
    • Classic. China would be nothing without Western, Japanese, and South Korean technology.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      441
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      134
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!